Home
 /
Papers
 /
Bioengineering
 /
Rational design of synthetic proteins using a genome-scale CRISPR screen
Preprint
Open access
V1
Top 1% · Validated by QED

Rational design of synthetic proteins using a genome-scale CRISPR screen

Wells H. Burrell, Simon J. Mueller, Zharko Daniloski +12 more
February 2026
 ·
bioRxiv
 ·
DOI 
10.64898/2026.02.19.706875
94
%
Reproducible
QED Impressions
This paper passed independent validation.
QED's automated review checked the evidence supporting each claim, the statistical methods, and whether the results are reproducible from the data provided.

It ranks in the top 1% of preprints assessed in Bioengineering this quarter.
Run full QED analysis
Read paper
Save

Why this is interesting

By screening the human proteome for proteins that promote precise editing and fusing the best to Cas9, this study proves function-first protein design works at scale—more than doubling CAR insertion in primary T cells.

QED claims analysis

Summary

A genome-scale CRISPR activation screen identifying over 800 HDR-promoting proteins enables rational design of synthetic Cas9 fusion editors (TruEditors) that achieve 25-40% precise editing rates at endogenous loci through recruitment of distinct endogenous DNA repair complexes, with optimized minimal domain variants improving CAR-T cell engineering efficiency more than 2-fold and correcting disease mutations at genomic sites inaccessible to existing precise editing methods.

See full analysis
Main Claim 1 –

Genome-scale CRISPRa screen identifies >800 HDR-promoting human proteins

Main Claim 2 –

Cas9 fusion of HDR factors yields TruEditors enhancing precise editing

Supporting evidence

  • Most TruEditors require direct Cas9 tethering, not co-expression
Main Claim 3 –

TruEditors achieve 25–40% HDR at endogenous disease loci

Supporting evidence

  • TruEditors preserve DNA repair capacity unlike NHEJ inhibitors
  • TruEditors correct low-GC loci where prime editing fails
  • TruEditors deliver ~2-fold editing gains across cell types and mutations
Main Claim 4 –

Minimal BLM 2–194 domain outperforms full-length TruEditor fusions

Supporting evidence

  • BLM 2–194 TruEditor improves HDR across seven editing contexts

Abstract

Protein structure prediction using deep learning has revolutionized protein design. Yet, our understanding of protein function remains a key limitation for designing novel proteins that perform complex biological tasks. Here, we adopt a massively-parallel, function-first approach to rationally design synthetic proteins. Using genome-scale CRISPR activation, we overexpress ∼19,000 human proteins and measure their impact on precise gene editing. We identify over 800 native proteins that promote homology-directed repair. Using top candidates, we then design synthetic genome editors — Targeted Repair fUsion Editors (TruEditors) — by fusing full-length proteins or smaller core domains to the Cas9 nuclease. We develop 12 unique TruEditors that improve precise gene editing in diverse cell types and at genomic loci where existing methods for precise gene editing fail. Using affinity proteomics, we show that these synthetic proteins work by coordinating with endogenous DNA repair complexes. The delivery of TruEditors via mRNA more than doubles the rate of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) insertion into the TRAC locus of primary human T cells, enhancing CAR T cell-directed tumor cell killing, and improves precise editing in human pluripotent stem cells more than three-fold. Overall, our study demonstrates that genome-wide protein overexpression screens can guide the rational design of synthetic proteins for specific biological tasks.

Related papers

How the QED Score works

QED Score is a validated AI-based quality metric that evaluates life science papers on two dimensions: originality and validity. Each manuscript is anonymized, broken down into its claims and supporting evidence, and examined by specialized AI agents for statistical rigor, consistency across figures, and fit with the existing literature. Scores are percentile ranks, so they're comparable across fields. In blinded tests, expert professors sided with QED Score over journal rank in 75% of decisive cases.
Read the methodology

Free access for academic researchers

Create your free QED account to validate your research, strengthen grant proposals, and uncover scientific insights.
We've sent you an access link.
Please check your inbox.

Didn't get your email? Check your spam folder or reach out to info@qedscience.com

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Looking for QED for pharma, biotech or life science organizations?